Was Adam a Slave?

[Narz]

It's mostly "be excellent to each other". And no, we don't feel enslaved by it, but my point is that we ignore it. We don't do what's the right thing to do, and then we redefine our morality to make it okay. No, I'm not the least bit religious, but I do stand by the existence of objective morality, and part of that morality is to 'be excellent'.
You can pursue that duty, and fail or you can ignore that duty. But the duty is there.

I think the idea of objective morality is the most ridiculous thing ever. I probably would agree with your definitely of what "right" is though. But if people don't respect it ideals of rightness will only frustrate you. People are gonna rape the **** out of the planet because they don't see any other way out. Same reason people ignore the human rights issues beyond many of the products they use everyday (electronics, textiles, etc.)

We're not "designed" for the world we live in today (not intelligently designed, if we had been God would've seen the crazy world we have to inherit full of fast food, booze & internet porn & adapted us to it).

Human's "natural" morality is highly flawed. Take the thought-experiment where people imagine pulled a level to divert a train which will kill 1 man but save 5, most will do it. But if they have to push a fat man onto the trains to block the train most won't.

Problems like global warming or ignoring human rights issues 8,000 miles away for convenience are much more complicated (even somewhat intelligent people on this forum can be found arguing that sweatshops where women work 16 hour shifts while their babies suffer severe neglect are awesome because they create jobs) are much more complicated than any thought experiment & far beyond our natural/evolved morality to handle. So any appeal to natural or "objective" morality is ridiculous. Morality must adapt as we do but it isn't, therefore we're f***ed.

 

[Borachio]

Imagine you are a fat man watching a runaway train approaching. There is a lever you can pull to divert the train from a course where it will kill 6 people to one where it will kill one. Do you pull the lever? Or do you jump onto to the track, derailing the train as it runs over your fat body, killing you in the process?

 

[Narz]

I think I'd pull the lever, if I couldn't handle that I'd watch the carnage. I'm too valuable to kill myself, sadly the people on the tracks (assuming they are all strangers) or only potentially valuable (they may be murderers & rapists or just really boring, I don't know anything about them).

By the way, this sums up how people view their future selves & future society in general. This is scientifically proven & is the reason they procrastinate, they treat their future self as if he will Herculainly be able to handle all their BS they've put out of their minds. To the mind, "future self" is a stranger, as much as the idiots playing on the track tracks.

 

[Hygro]

I think I'd pull the lever, if I couldn't handle that I'd watch the carnage. I'm too valuable to kill myself, sadly the people on the tracks (assuming they are all strangers) or only potentially valuable (they may be murderers & rapists or just really boring, I don't know anything about them).

By the way, this sums up how people view their future selves & future society in general. This is scientifically proven & is the reason they procrastinate, they treat their future self as if he will Herculainly be able to handle all their BS they've put out of their minds. To the mind, "future self" is a stranger, as much as the idiots playing on the track tracks.

Whoa that was deep. But sometimes people are correct, their future selves will handle it better, making it more efficient in the long run to feel good in the moment.

 

[Farm Boy]

I think the idea of objective morality is the most ridiculous thing ever.

But it's real. At least it's real insofar as our ridiculous systems of justice are concerned. At least it's real insofar as the instances where we actually succeed in preserving a future resource at the expense of our current selves. If you genuinely want this world to be better, to "rape it softer?" then you should be embracing objective morality, for all its ridiculous insanity, because it's a decent ridiculous tool for a ridiculous species of jumped-up ape. I understand the rage at the concept of intelligent design when the world remains so very different from how I would demand it to be were I to have that power. It's infuriating to the very bones. But it comes and goes once I realize that we all have the tendency to think that we're far more important than we are. Which kinda takes us back to the very core of the issue to begin with. See? It's not all that complex when you zoom out a tad! Even the fat man example makes sense if you build in some understanding and forgiveness for the fact that most people understand that they are not perfect. That good people second guess themselves, and they dither, particularly when faced with the prospect of doing something terrible. You really don't want half-daydreaming commuters ready to push fat men in the way of trains on a half-second's notice if they happen to see something incorrectly from half paid attention. That's simply our filters shying us away from being monstrous by default. It takes a little additional effort to be that, generally, for most people.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think the idea of objective morality is the most ridiculous thing ever.
...
Problems like global warming or ignoring human rights issues 8,000 miles away for convenience ... are far beyond our natural/evolved morality to handle. So any appeal to natural or "objective" morality is ridiculous. Morality must adapt as we do but it isn't, therefore we're f***ed.

Here's where I will disagree using an analogy I've used here before.

We are fundamentally incapable of drawing a perfect circle. Not only are we not evolved to do it, but it's not possible due to the nature of the universe. Does the concept 'perfect circle' exist? Of course it does. I can say that tree trunk is more 'circlelike' than a car. And you'd agree. No one says "oh, it was more circlelike, but our concept of circles must adapt".

I may judge all physical circles against this objective circle.

 

[Hygro]

Here's where I will disagree using an analogy I've used here before.

We are fundamentally incapable of drawing a perfect circle. Not only are we not evolved to do it, but it's not possible due to the nature of the universe. Does the concept 'perfect circle' exist? Of course it does. I can say that tree trunk is more 'circlelike' than a car. And you'd agree. No one says "oh, it was more circlelike, but our concept of circles must adapt".

I may judge all physical circles against this objective circle.

In social science that's called an Ideal-Type. Weber suggested using it to construct models around to assist with social studies, so build economic models around maximizing an ideal-type economic system (the perfect circle of imaginary pure capitalism for example) only to be used when appropriate. Same with sociology, political science, etc.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm okay with that. I think of it as 'platonic ideal'. That way, one can just proposed changes as moving towards (or away from) 'ideal capitalism' or 'ideal democracy'. Or, more naturally, a 'healthy lifestyle' or an 'unhealthy lifestyle'.

 

[classical_hero]

Here's where I will disagree using an analogy I've used here before.

We are fundamentally incapable of drawing a perfect circle. Not only are we not evolved to do it, but it's not possible due to the nature of the universe. Does the concept 'perfect circle' exist? Of course it does. I can say that tree trunk is more 'circlelike' than a car. And you'd agree. No one says "oh, it was more circlelike, but our concept of circles must adapt".

I may judge all physical circles against this objective circle.

If we have evolved, then there is simply no objective truth, just what we desires want.

 

[Harv]

If we have evolved, then there is simply no objective truth, just what we desires want.

Question: If you believe in evolution theory, does your life match your belief?

 

[Borachio]

I think I'd pull the lever, if I couldn't handle that I'd watch the carnage. I'm too valuable to kill myself, sadly the people on the tracks (assuming they are all strangers) or only potentially valuable (they may be murderers & rapists or just really boring, I don't know anything about them).

By the way, this sums up how people view their future selves & future society in general. This is scientifically proven & is the reason they procrastinate, they treat their future self as if he will Herculainly be able to handle all their BS they've put out of their minds. To the mind, "future self" is a stranger, as much as the idiots playing on the track tracks.

"I'm too valuable to kill myself". OK. We know where we stand, then.

So it comes down to a choice between six (was it six? can't remember) people or one person.

What happens if the six people are Hitler, Goering, Himmler (also fat), Goebels, Strasser, and Rohm, and the one person is a 6 month old baby?

Does this affect your choice of pulling the lever? Does it affect your decision, as a fat man, of not jumping on the track?

 

[El_Machinae]

If we have evolved, then there is simply no objective truth, just what we desires want.

No, you're logically wrong. Sorry, but your religious views are kind of built on sand. Jesus had something to say about that.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I used to argue that objective morality was a thing and that utilitarianism was that thing.
I am not so sure anymore. My axiom was that morality is about good and bad and since only feelings actually can be good or bad in themselves, that morality is hence about good and bad feelings. Utilitarianism. A choice is hence the more moral the more quality of feelings it means.
This in principle still sounds sound to me. Yet - I find myself struggling with the concept of good and bad feelings. Of course there are feelings more and less pleasant and we commonly say they were good or bad feelings because we commonly desire pleasure. But who am I to say that it is objectively good to feel pleasant? I am beginning to believe it is fundamentally arbitrary to say so. Not a matter of objective fact.

So today I'd say while there is no truly objective morality, the premise of good feelings being in principle good at least allows for a thoroughly rational concept of morality which is as least arbitrary as humanly possible.

 

[warpus]

I used to argue that objective morality was a thing and that utilitarianism was that thing.
I am not so sure anymore. My axiom was that morality is about good and bad and since only feelings actually can be good or bad in themselves, that morality is hence about good and bad feelings. Utilitarianism. A choice is hence the more moral the more quality of feelings it means.
This in principle still sounds sound to me. Yet - I find myself struggling with the concept of good and bad feelings. Of course there are feelings more and less pleasant and we commonly say they were good or bad feelings because we commonly desire pleasure. But who am I to say that it is objectively good to feel pleasant? I am beginning to believe it is fundamentally arbitrary to say so. Not a matter of objective fact.

So today I'd say while there is no truly objective morality, the premise of good feelings being in principle good at least allows for a thoroughly rational concept of morality which is as least arbitrary as humanly possible.

The way I see it there is no such thing as objective morality, as such a thing would require some sort of a source. I mean, such a source might exist, but we have no reason to believe that it does, so for now we'll have to go with "nope, probably not".

Anyway, we do have a bit of a somewhat kinda objective morality when it comes to our species. Since we are all one species and sort of one civilization now, we have a ton of things in common and a lot of things we will agree on. There are plenty of disagreements, but most of us will agree on certain basics. I think that for this reason it *seems* like we have objective morality - but it simply is a vague descriptor that happens to work for our species and/or civilization.

A species living on another planet somewhere in a galaxy far far away might have their own "obvious" morality, stuff that makes sense for them and has been affected by millions of years of evolution and thousands of years of civilization. It might be stuff that we totally wouldn't agree was moral, but to them it might be "obvious".

So I guess to me it's not really a struggle of objective vs subjective morality, but rather figuring out what exactly the "proper" morality is for our civilization. I doubt we'll all ever agree on the details, so it will always be a subjective battleground - with that "objective" framework in place, based on things that we for the most part agree with because of our common heritage.

 

[Hygro]

If we have evolved, then there is simply no objective truth, just what we desires want.

There's objective truth because there are things that are objective true. There is objective morality only in the sense that objectively there is a concept of morality, but that's about as far as I can go in saying morality is anything other than subjective--indeed the most basic self-replicating organism, i.e. the foundation of all our strain of life, had an intrinsic preference distinguisher between good/bad or want/don't want.

BTW Even presuming an Abrahamic god that's still God's subjective morality, by the Bible's own anthropomorphized logic of its God.

 

[onejayhawk]

BTW Even presuming an Abrahamic god that's still God's subjective morality, by the Bible's own anthropomorphized logic of its God.

That does not follow. Abraham's God is a teaching God. His word is intended to instruct.

J

 

[Winner]

The biblical Adam is probably a Slav too. And since god created men after his own image, god is - in all likelihood - also a Slav. Most likely a Pole, to be precise.

He might actually be a Czech, come to think about it — He also doesn't believe in Himself

 

[timtofly]

Question: If you believe in evolution theory, does your life match your belief?

Are you replacing a belief, or just accepting what you have been taught? If you are just accepting what you have been taught, then that is the only life you know, and it would seem to me that western society has not yet changed it's lifestyle to reflect evolution.

If evolution does eventually replace the western lifestyle, what would it look like?

 

[Borachio]

Question: If you believe in evolution theory, does your life match your belief?

What would it mean for your life to match your belief in evolution?

 

[onejayhawk]

What would it mean for your life to match your belief in evolution?

It means "Are you nihilist?" Why bother.

Wait, that would be apathetic.

J